What is Spiritual Safety?
Defining the opposite of spiritual abuse
I recently closed a second round of the Spiritually Abusive Leadership and Climate Survey with 637 responses.1 Adding that number to first round of participants, I now have data from nearly 1,000 people with a range of experiences in unhealthy and healthy church contexts.
As I continue working on the final survey and a forthcoming book, I have been thinking about the larger goal of this project. For example: to develop a scoring system for an assessment, you first have to determine exactly what you are measuring. Is it spiritually abusive behavior (negative framing)? If so, higher scores will indicate greater levels of abuse. Or is it the opposite of spiritual abuse (positive framing)? If so, higher scores are desired and lower scores indicate abuse.
In other words, where do we set the goal post? Is it to define and quantify spiritual abuse or its antithesis?
Using a negative frame—measuring spiritual abuse—provides a clear diagnosis of the problem, but it leaves people with the unanswered question, “where do we go from here?” What does it look like to not be abusive?
How many pastors would say “my goal as a leader is to be non-abusive?”
A positively-framed goal is more motivating than a negative one. If we can give people a picture of what we are trying to build, they have something beneficial to work towards. The Israelites followed Moses through the desert because there was a promised land on the other side.
A positive frame is different from toxic positivity, where people only want to talk about the positives. Toxic positivity increases the harm done to victims by minimizing and dismissing their very real experiences of pain. Let’s focus on the positive sends an abuse survivor the message “get over it.” Don’t dwell on the negative communicates “we don’t want to hear about the ‘bad’ stuff.” Toxic positivity is an avoidance strategy. It helps people avoid the discomfort of acknowledging abuse and prevents us from seeing the problem for what it is.
We need to name abuse as abuse and take an honest look at the harm it causes. Many brave survivors have come forward to share their stories. I’m hopeful that my survey will put numbers to both the breadth and depth of the problem of spiritual abuse.
Most people will agree that we want to move away from spiritual abuse. But few can define what, exactly, it is that we are moving towards.
We need a term that describes the opposite of spiritual abuse.
I am exploring spiritual safety as the opposite of spiritual abuse. Spiritual safety has been discussed in medical practice as “the extent to which the individual recipient of care is and feels secure to practice their faith.”2 Similarly, in Trauma-Informed Spiritual Care, Dr. Danielle Tumminio Hansen says “when a person is spiritually safe, they feel comfortable exploring and expressing their beliefs, values, practices, and experiences.”3 According to Dr. Hansen, an unsafe religious community, or a religious authority figure who is not trustworthy, can compromise someone’s spiritual safety.
Spiritual safety means you are SAFE to be spiritual.
Some people in the church will take issue with the terms “spiritually safe” and “psychologically safe.” They might say “Jesus isn’t safe” or “church isn’t about playing it safe.” I would agree. Jesus isn’t safe—for those who are misusing their power and taking advantage of people under their care. Jesus was safe for those who were marginalized, outcast, and oppressed—the tax collectors, prostitutes, and Samaritans.
If your definition of “safety” is playing it safe, I would also agree that church isn’t about playing it safe. Christ-centered community pushes us out of our comfort zone to examine the dark corners of our hearts, to love our neighbors radically, and to hold each other accountable to Godly behavior. That requires us to take interpersonal risks. It brings us to places that may be extremely uncomfortable. Witnessing people’s pain and suffering will do that.
However, if we define “safety” as freedom from being harmed by others, perhaps more people will understand the goal. I hope most Christians will agree that the church should be a place where people are not abused, exploited, or oppressed. Church is meant to be a place we can safely connect with God and other people. Spiritual abuse causes spiritual, relational, and psychological damage. There is no place for spiritual abuse in the body of Christ.
As I continue building on this concept of spiritual safety, I’m developing several working definitions:
Spiritual safety is an environment that is psychologically safe and free from spiritual abuse. In spiritually safe churches, people can ask questions and express concerns. It is permissible to debate important issues and have disagreement. Unity does not mean uniformity. We can have honest, hard conversations about areas of sin without devaluing each other as fellow children of God. Leaders are held to higher standards as shepherds of the flock.
Spiritually safe leaders value, protect, and empower the people in their care. They lead with humility, not a position of superiority. Their goal is to serve the needs of their congregation, not to elevate their own position. They do not presume to have all the right answers but seek to learn from those they lead. Authority is something to be earned, not commanded. They admit wrongs and take accountability for their missteps, whether intentional or unintentional. They listen well, take feedback to heart, and show visible signs of growth.
Spiritual safety allows people to embrace their faith without coercion or control. It values and protects individual autonomy. Spiritually safe organizations empower people to use their gifts and their judgment. They give all members a voice regardless of their rank. They uphold standards for treating people with dignity and respect. They take accountability seriously and intervene when leaders are abusing their staff. Spiritually safe organizations do not tolerate or enable abuse.
Spiritually safe cultures take concerns about abusive behavior in earnest. They welcome testimony from victims because they value protecting the flock. They seek to learn from experts where they may have blind spots. They pursue truth even when it compromises their image. They extend grace and require accountability for offenders. They presume that no one is incapable of sin, prioritizing safeguarding measures for the protection of all.
Spiritual safety is necessary for spiritual flourishing. It enables us to have healthy relationships with other believers, with ourselves, and with God. Spiritual abuse is a form of oppression. In abusive environments, people suffer physical, emotional, spiritual, and relational damage. They may become a shell of their former self. In healthy environments people can bring their whole self to church. They are free to use their spiritual gifts, try out new initiatives, and make honest mistakes. The Gospel flourishes in spiritually safe communities.
Jesus created spiritual safety. He gave people freedom to make their own decision about following him. He wanted people to love God from their inner heart, not because of external pressure. He condemned the abuses of power by religious leaders. He approached marginalized people with compassion and dignity. He maintained a seat at his table for those who betrayed him. No one was excluded from his kingdom if they confessed and believed. The church is called to follow his example.
I’d love to hear your thoughts. Which definition of spiritual safety do you find most compelling?
The survey is currently closed for data analysis, but you can learn more about the research progress at www.salcsurvey.com.
Keenan, P. M. (2017). Spiritual vulnerability, spiritual risk and spiritual safety—in answer to a question: why is spirituality important within health and social care? at the second international spirituality in healthcare conference 2016—nurturing the spirit. Trinity College Dublin, the University of Dublin.
Hansen, D. T. (2024). Trauma-informed spiritual care: Interventions for safety, meaning, reconnection, and justice. Augsburg Fortress Publishers.